SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
AT&T Lays Off Thousands After Nabbing Billions In Tax Breaks And Regulatory Favors
Back in November of 2017 AT&T promised that if it received a tax break from the Trump administration, it would invest an additional $1 billion back into its network and employees. At the time, CEO Randall Stephenson proclaimed that "every billion dollars AT&T invests is 7,000 hard-hat jobs." Not "entry-level jobs," AT&T promised, but "7,000 jobs of people putting fiber in ground, hard-hat jobs that make $70,000 to $80,000 per year."
Yeah, about that.
The Trump tax cut resulted in AT&T getting billions in immediate tax relief, and roughly $3 billion in tax savings annually, in perpetuity. Yet when it came time for AT&T to re-invest this money back into its network and employees, AT&T actually did the opposite and began laying them off in droves. Unions claim AT&T has laid off an estimated 23,000 workers worldwide since the Trump tax plan, with investors and executives unsurprisingly pocketing the savings. This week, the word came down that AT&T would be laying off thousands more as it wraps up fiber deployment:
"Leaked internal documents confirmed most of the 1,800 planned job cuts. One AT&T surplus declaration shows that more than 900 of the surplus jobs come from the company's Southeast division in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. This document attributes most of the cuts to "economic" reasons and some to "technological/operational efficiency."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @01:09PM (2 children)
1) Revenue is generated from the activities.
2) Operating costs (including salaries) are substracted.
3) Now you have profit before tax.
4) Taxes are paid.
5) Now we have profit after tax.
6) Profit after tax is given to the shareholders.
It goes always in that order. Now, cut out point 4... where does the extra money end up?
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @03:36PM
More telemarketer jobs in India.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Friday June 21 2019, @03:39PM
When you cut out point number 4, you substantially increase point number 2, but only at the top executive level.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @01:32PM (5 children)
That's capitalism for you: Privatize the profits, socialize the spendings.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday June 21 2019, @02:18PM (4 children)
Which is why, IMHO, without some kind of organized system of laws and regulations, the rich get richer (and richer and fatter) and bypass the poor, no matter what they say they will do. This is a great example of where a corporation should be held to their end of the bargain, or face civil (return the $) _and_ criminal penalties.
And, capitalism isn't really at work here: AT&T own utility poles and rights of way, antenna towers and RF spectra, patents, deals, etc. It isn't possible to compete in the simplistic economic set of assumptions that our society seems to believe in.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday June 21 2019, @03:41PM (3 children)
Also don't forget ATT's (and Verizon and Comcast etc.} plant (the poles, conduit, cable, optic cables, switching centers, transmission towers, etc.) are granted monopoly by local and state governments.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday June 21 2019, @04:30PM (2 children)
Absolutely. I'd love to know the political history- like, in light of anti-monopoly / antitrust legislation, why they allowed it to happen. I know, because even the company reps. sing the song, that they (Verizon and AT&T anyway) are heavily regulated by the govt. But did the govt. pass legislation and forget to check on how things are going? Did the clever corporations find loopholes and work around the regulations? Are we all to blame because we're not demonstrating in the streets? I tend to think the lobbyists are the problem- congress hears them and not us. Oh, I'm sure some congressional committee will "look into the situation" but that'll take months and we'll be on to many other topics by then.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Saturday June 22 2019, @12:00AM (1 child)
AT&T was broken up in the early 1980s after a long anti-trust investigation. But not really broken up as for the most part the Boards of the "Baby Bells" were of the same few dozen people. Around the turn of the century they were all being gathered together again under the Southwestern Bell umbrella, eventually once again becoming AT&T.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_the_Bell_System [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_AT%26T [wikipedia.org]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday June 22 2019, @02:26AM
My aunt worked for "The Phone Company" for many years. I even have some cherished tools that are labeled "Bell System". When that breakup happened, she had the option of going with AT&T or the local Bell operating company ("Baby Bells"). I forget what it was called then. It got gobbled up by the growing new monopoly Verizon. Anyway, she opted for AT&T and worked there until retirement.
IIRC, technically AT&T continued in existence, but for a while only handled "long-distance" and competed with MCI, and I think Sprint, and some others. And of course much of the Internet "backbone".
Yes, when the smoke cleared and all new people were in govt., the memory faded and the monopolies rebuilt.
Was it Monty Python's "Meaning of Life" that started out with the corporation monsters? All I know is I'm mentally picturing huge buildings destroying civilization.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 21 2019, @01:46PM (11 children)
There are still people who are surprised at this sort of corporate conduct! Shocking!
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by TheGratefulNet on Friday June 21 2019, @02:32PM (9 children)
no matter what, idiots will CONTINUE to vote R, which goes against the little guy even though the little guy is totally convinced by the R's that 'his time will soon come'.
they are stupid beyond belief. and they have more votes than the smarter sides of the country so we all suffer due to their ignorance.
this country seem to refuse to win.
lets just close up shop, send all the remaining money to the fucking R's and give up. it will be less painful that way to just end it all quickly.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday June 21 2019, @02:36PM (4 children)
So, uhhhh, let me get this straight. You're saying that AT&T has never made any donations to a D candidate? AT&T has never lobbied a D congress critter? And, no D ever voted to give AT&T money by the truckload? It's only R's who do this?
If that were true, I might consider becoming a D. Unfortunately, it isn't true, so I'll remain Independent.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Friday June 21 2019, @03:41PM (3 children)
Corporations (who are people too!) have been known to make donations to both (or all) political sides. They want to be in favor with whoever ends up in power. They don't care about ideology, except for one ideology: money is god, and we want our executives to have all the money they can possibly get, before the shareholders and government can get it.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday June 21 2019, @10:51PM (2 children)
I'll believe that when I see one of them go to jail (yes, I saw the sarcasm tag :) ).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:41AM
I'd settle for a toe tag....../s
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday June 24 2019, @01:37PM
I use <no-sarcasm> tags when necessary. Not the other way around.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 21 2019, @02:49PM (3 children)
Idiocy is in the eye of the beholder, but there are deeply imprinted psychological bases which drive some to vote R and some D (and Hollywood to promote I). They say that it's about as unlearnable as sexual preference, and they're developing a brain scan for it.
The test I saw, a couple of years ago, had a lot of gross-out questions - people who would _never even consider_ doing something they considered repulsive (inflexible much?) were highly correlated with R votes.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 22 2019, @05:35AM (2 children)
While you're right that political leanings are hard wired to a large degree, it's still a spectrum with a sizeable chunk in the middle who can be swayed either way, or into not voting.
The other thing I've noticed, at least here in Canada, is the right is much more united and are likely to win the next election due to the centre and left being divided between 3 or 4 parties. Yea for the first past the post bullshit and the lies the right tell to keep it that way.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday June 22 2019, @11:29AM (1 child)
I think that's based in the hardwired nature of things. The right likes a simple story, even if it's wrong. Do as I say (not as I do), etc. I'm also fairly sure I hate the way the left is trying to make itself a bloc in the US, but, maybe if the center left can get enough power for long enough they can restructure government to get rid of first past the post, gerrymandering, and all the other crap. Not likely, but we can hope. At least we don't have dictator kings put in power by birthright anymore.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday June 22 2019, @04:07PM
Well, the right has split up here a few times, extreme right and centre right, the left gets in, and the right freak out, blame all the problems on the left and reunite, usually as more extreme right. Alberta is a good case, 30 years of conservative rule, lowering taxes, giving away resources, not investing. New right wing extreme party splits the vote, socialists actually get in, and all the problems that took decades to manifest blamed on the left, new right wing party that is more extreme created and back in charge, once again believing that they just need to lower taxes and spending to fix things, and of course the problem is 4 years of centre left Federal government not doing what 10 years of right wing government couldn't do.
As for getting rid of the first past the post system. We've been trying here in BC, 3 referendums so far, with the first 2 having the government being fairly neutral and barely losing, as in 59% for when it took 60%. Then last time, the right has moved further right and tons of fearmonging and it lost worse.
Federally, it was one of Trudeau's election promises, cancelled not long after as too decisive. Really the parties want majorities so they can pretty well do what they want.
As for dictator Kings, the last one we had was James the 2nd, who got fired by Parliament. Before that it was Charles the 1st, who lost his head to Parliament. The problem was Parlaiment was and still is partially, run by the rich. Americans like to go on about the dictator George the 3rd, but in truth, it was Parliament that had the power.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 21 2019, @02:46PM
Good profit is where you find it, or, more completely [fandom.com].
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by ilPapa on Friday June 21 2019, @02:29PM (1 child)
Thank god we decided to put a businessman in the White House.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DannyB on Friday June 21 2019, @03:43PM
A "businessman" who self described as "the king of bankruptcy".
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 21 2019, @02:57PM (1 child)
There's the problem right there- why invest money for future gains when you can just send it straight to the stockholders, most of whom aren't really interested in anything beyond 90 days out anyway?
What they need to do is give the big corporations 3 billion dollars, contingent on them investing one billion of it and providing those 7000 jobs to the hard-hat workers so they can afford a house in the suburbs if they have a wife who also earns income... then the other 2 billion can be distributed among the investors so they can buy their second yachts and it's a win-win. Hey, if the investors are lazy and don't protect themselves against capital gains taxes, $400 million of that $3B will even flow back to the source through taxes, so it's really a bargain proposition at $2.6B net cost to the taxpayers to actually get those 7000 jobs, as opposed to a paltry $1B that only went to the investors and netted negative new jobs.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 21 2019, @03:21PM
No. How about they pay taxes like everyone else.
No more tax breaks! We are broke! Pay the debt and fix the infrastructure.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Friday June 21 2019, @03:08PM (1 child)
Investors and management like to portray themselves as "job creators". They like to explain why the government is doing them favors as "because it will create or save jobs in the area". They like to claim that tax cuts and loosening legal rules will boost profits, sure, but it will also create or save jobs.
All of it is total bullshit.
The only thing that creates or saves more than a handful of jobs is demand for products and services that require labor to create them. And the only thing that creates more jobs in the richer parts of the world is demand for products and services that require labor in those richer parts of the world to create them. Everything else is a waste of money for any company, and companies try not to do things that waste money.
All those tax incentives offered by your state or municipality? Those are the result of companies saying "We will hire people here only if you make it so we never have to pay a dime in taxes, and even give us a nice chunk of change for your trouble. And don't worry, Mr Mayor, we'll make sure to remember your willingness to work with us in the upcoming election." And Mr Mayor usually takes the deal because their only alternative is to be accused of killing jobs and being voted out of office. The most obvious example of this was when hundreds of cities across America chose to grovel at Jeff Bezos' feet for the false hope of having Amazon's second HQ in their city - look at the kinds of deals being offered.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday June 22 2019, @02:09PM
The real job creators have always been little people. Small businesses, small-time inventors, and entrepreneurs. In the news, we see a steady stream of startups, being bought out by the corporates. Where did these startups come from?
They were all just small town people with an idea to do something cool, or do something better, or do something cheaper, or to make something look better. They all start in an apartment, a garage, or a shed. They sell a little, and the upgrade to larger quarters, out of the home. They sell more, and maybe they rent a shop, a warehouse, whatever. And, all along the way, they are hiring.
Then, they get bought out, the corporation takes all their stock, their tools, their contacts, and their employees. Soon after, the corporation has layed off almost all of those employees.
Corporations, big business, and management has almost never "created jobs". Instead, they consume jobs.
(Score: 1) by fennec on Friday June 21 2019, @08:00PM
When you ask for money at the bank you get a contract, fail to pay back they take your house.
In France, and probably elsewhere, you can get tax breaks to install solar panel or just better insulation. You don't give proof you don't get it.
Why didn't ATT get a contract to get this tax break?
(Score: 1) by hwertz on Saturday June 22 2019, @05:52AM
Yup. When AT&T was pushing for a merger with T-Mobile, they also got caught lying -- they made claims how they needed T-Mo spectrum and such to complete their LTE upgrade, and stated how this would not reduce jobs but actually increase them. Then an AT&T memo was accidentally (or maybe "accidentally") posted to the FCC debunking both (it showed plans to build out LTE without T-Mo, and labor estimates totally contradicting what they stated otherwise). I twas pulled within minutes but copies were made already by then. Par for the course.
What will these tax breaks go for? AT&T has $180 billion in debt, apparently high enough to start to scare investors (and make it so any old loans that come due, any new loans they get to pay those off will be at MUCH higher interest rates...) AT&T is publicly saying every penny of discretionary spending will go towards paying off their debt for the foreseeable future.